Ukraine’s war effort is confronting a reality long whispered about but rarely acknowledged at the highest political level. The disclosure by newly appointed Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov that an estimated 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers are absent without official leave (AWOL) and that around 2 million citizens are wanted for evading military service marks a watershed moment in Kyiv’s public narrative of the war.
For nearly three years, Ukraine has relied on a combination of patriotic mobilisation, Western military aid, and battlefield resilience to counter a materially superior Russian force. Fedorov’s comments, delivered before parliament ahead of his confirmation vote, pierce that narrative and expose the human limits of a prolonged, attritional conflict.
The figures do not simply reflect individual acts of desertion or draft evasion. They point to a systemic strain on Ukrainian society, its armed forces, and the state’s capacity to sustain a high-intensity war without structural reform.
Years of attrition and the erosion of morale
The conditions on the front in this case have progressively deteriorated as time has passed during this conflict. The units of Ukraine have frequently had to defend territory in the face of overwhelming artillery bombardments, aerial attacks, and vastly outnumbered Russian troops. The Ukrainian brigades in this case, as per Western investigations, have had to operate at levels of 50- to 60% capacity.
In this context, the scale of AWOL cases becomes less surprising. Soldiers facing months in trenches with limited rest, inconsistent resupply, and uncertain rotation schedules are operating at the edge of human endurance. While Ukraine has publicly emphasised heroism and sacrifice, the absence of a sustainable personnel system has increasingly translated into quiet disengagement rather than open mutiny.
Fedorov’s disclosure is the first official confirmation that morale erosion has moved beyond anecdotal reports into a measurable crisis.
Draft evasion as a social phenomenon
The number of 2 million Ukrainian citizens wanted for evading military service appears even more politically charged. According to Ukrainian legislation, men aged 18-60 are obliged to register with the military authorities, and those aged 25-60 are mobilized. Additionally, during martial law, it is banned for those aged 23-60 to travel abroad.
Despite this, tens of thousands have apparently escaped overland using forged papers, or by paying their way or crossing dangerous river borders to Romania, Moldova, or Hungary, as has been repeatedly verified by Ukrainian border guards for arrest and drownings at river borders. The extent of these evasions speaks not just to fear, but to an increasingly perceived disproportionate distribution of war effort.
Reports of corruption in mobilization offices, so-called cronyism, and lack of enforcement have further eroded public confidence. If mobilization is seen to be arbitrary or unjust, cooperation will falter—and with it, public support for the war effort.
Political consequences for Kyiv’s leadership
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s acknowledgment that “broader changes” are needed in the mobilisation system signals an understanding that the issue can no longer be managed through enforcement alone. However, reform carries political risks. Any attempt to widen the draft net or lower age thresholds risks triggering public backlash, particularly in urban centres already strained by economic hardship and war fatigue.
Zelensky’s leadership has relied heavily on maintaining unity and morale. A visible manpower crisis complicates Kyiv’s messaging to both domestic and international audiences. Western allies, already debating the sustainability of military aid, may increasingly question whether Ukraine can field the personnel necessary to effectively use advanced weapons systems.
A generational gamble with a young defence minister
Fedorov’s appointment as defence minister at just 34 years old reflects a generational shift in Kyiv’s leadership approach. Best known for his role as Minister of Digital Transformation, he played a key role in Ukraine’s rapid adoption of drone warfare, digital logistics, and battlefield innovation.
His emphasis on technology as a solution to manpower shortages is telling. Ukraine has become one of the world’s most prolific users of drones, deploying tens of thousands annually for reconnaissance, strike missions, and electronic warfare. Fedorov revealed that 500 Ukrainian companies now produce drones, alongside 200 firms specialising in jamming equipment and more than 20 private missile producers.
This industrial mobilisation is impressive, but it also highlights a strategic gamble: that technology can offset declining manpower.
Technology as force multiplier—or illusion?
While drones and autonomous systems have transformed the battlefield, they cannot fully replace infantry. Territory is still held by soldiers, logistics lines still require protection, and urban combat remains labour-intensive. Western military analysts caution that technological superiority without sufficient manpower risks creating hollow forces—units that possess advanced equipment but lack the personnel to exploit it effectively.
Russia, by contrast, has absorbed enormous casualties while continuing to mobilise hundreds of thousands of troops through coercive and economic incentives. Even with higher losses, Moscow’s demographic base and authoritarian mobilisation methods provide it with a grim but persistent manpower advantage.
Ukraine’s pivot toward robotics and automation may reduce casualties at the margins, but it does not resolve the structural imbalance between the two sides.
Legal rigidity versus battlefield reality
Ukraine’s mobilisation laws, designed for national survival, are increasingly out of sync with battlefield realities. Mandatory registration, travel bans, and criminal penalties have not prevented mass evasion. Instead, they have pushed the problem underground, creating parallel economies of bribery and document falsification.
The existence of 200,000 AWOL soldiers also raises operational concerns. Units suddenly losing personnel disrupt command structures, weaken defensive lines, and place additional strain on remaining troops. Punitive measures may deter some desertion, but excessive enforcement risks accelerating the cycle of disengagement.
Implications for the war’s trajectory
Manpower shortages intersect with other strategic pressures facing Ukraine: delayed Western aid, ammunition shortages, and Russia’s increasing use of glide bombs and long-range missiles. Even the most sophisticated weapons systems require trained crews and support personnel.
If mobilisation reform fails, Ukraine may be forced into increasingly defensive postures, prioritising the preservation of forces over territorial recovery. This, in turn, could strengthen calls for negotiated settlements—an outcome Kyiv has resisted but may struggle to avoid if military capacity continues to erode.
A warning rather than a collapse
Fedorov’s remarks should not be interpreted as an admission of imminent defeat, but they do represent a warning. Wars are ultimately fought by societies, not just armies. When a significant portion of the population disengages—whether through evasion or absence—the strategic cost becomes cumulative.
Ukraine’s challenge now is to rebuild trust in mobilisation, distribute sacrifice more equitably, and align technological innovation with human sustainability. Without addressing the manpower crisis at its core, even the most advanced drones and digital systems may prove insufficient to compensate for the erosion of the country’s most critical resource: its people.
